[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Funny you should ask.


Define a "PLAY" as : An attempt by a defensive player on a batted or thrown ball to retire a runner or a batter-runner. A pitch is not a play except as it relates to an appeal play"

Probably pass

Too simplistic. How about hold a runner or limit the runner's advance? How about prevent the ball from going fair?

Change JO pitching distance to 43' for: G16U, G18U (depends on which rule change you address)

Should pass

Favor this, but what's wrong with taking it all the way down to 12U? Someone with pitching or pitching coaching experience care to answer?

Change the rule concerning a pitching or base distance discovered to be incorrect. The change is to when discovered, correct the error and revert back to the previous completed inning. If the first inning, restart the game.

This has to be because someone thought they were "cheated". I don't like the change and hope it does not survive committee

Agree - creates a real possiblity for an illegitimate "restart".

Change the batters box to 4' X 8'. In effect, adding a foot to the rear and outside of the box.

This was changed for 16" SP, so now it is being changed to, get this, "eliminate many conflicts concerning batters being out of the box. Bull$hit! This change was made in 16" to give the batter more room to run. I don't think regular SP softball needs to add space promoting running in the BB and allow the batter to provide more impetus to a batted ball already leaving the bat at an extremely high rate of speed.

Rationale is stupid, but I don't really care. Maybe the safety issue will shoot it down.

Change the pitcher's glove restriction to include "not the color of the ball"

Should pass

Seems rational, but does anyone make an optic yellow glove? Would this make the optic yellow brand name graphics illegal?

Allow 10U Girls (FP & SP) to bat the bench as long as both teams bat the same number of players

I hope someone chokes on this one..

Stupid, since local leagues can do this already. Why put it in the championship rules?

SP change allowing the pitcher to "take a position with both feet firmly on the ground and with one or both feet within the 24" width of the pitchers plate anywhere between the pitchers plate and second base" prior to delivering the pitch. All other requirements stay in place with the exception of the pivot foot contacting the PP

I consider this a joke and an insult to the players of the game. Unfortunately, with Jerry Hanson's name on it, the change has a chance

I'd like to see this in female FP!

There are a multitude of changes eliminating the word "intentional" or "intentionally" when it pertains to interference.

The reason given was that the definition of "interference" in rule 1 does not mention "intention" so it shouldn't be part of the rules. I consider this a very dangerous change. This means that the runner from 1st to 2nd MUST go poof in a heartbeat or take one between the eyes and have the runner closest to home ruled out. Same thing with a deflected batted ball. The runner would be ruled out, intention or not. Same thing with the batter IN THE BOX. Don't care if the s/he is off balance, still in a follow through or whatever, if the catcher is hindered throwing to a base, INT is the call.

This is a seriously bad idea. This is not dodgeball.

Delete all the 10U baserunning restrictions. There is also a change deleting the rule for 10U A ball only

Florida is stating that the teams there will not play ASA because of this specific rule. I don't buy it, but I really don't care. BTW, the 10U I've seen will be a joke if this is dropped. Then again, I'm in DE and not any of the softball hubs.

ASA does need to address the competition issue; they need to address it in MN for JO fastpitch as well, but for a completely different set of problems. ASA needs to be more market-oriented; I have no opinion on whether this will actually improve things for ASA in FL. However, as a rule change, the net effect is the local leagues will put back their own variation that will be not well thought through and overly simplistic, which will be a bad deal.

Add an exception to the awarding of bases on an overthrow: "When the runner from 1st is between 2nd and third when a fielder catches a fly ball and then releases the throw that subsequently goes out of play, the runner from first should only receive two bases from the last base legally touched".

Yeah, I know it is the same, but in the reasoning the author is making the declaration that because the runner from 1B had to return, s/he has not legally touched 2B, therefore the runner, who properly retouches the required bases should only be awarded 2 bases from 1B instead of the runner's position at the time of the release. The author should be required to attend five national schools and the UIC clinic at their own expense until they are allowed to submit another rule change.

Then there would have to be a definition of "legally touched." After all, missing first base or leaving early on a caught fly does not make touching second base "illegal". It only makes the runner in jeopardy of being out on appeal.